Jim Allister MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister knows that his Government’s coffers have been swollen by hundreds of millions by the extra tax take, particularly VAT, on rising fuel prices. Would it therefore be unreasonable to expect a socialist Government to practise some redistribution of wealth from Government to hard-pressed vehicle users, farmers and businesses who are being crippled by the price hike in fuel? Today, surely, he can give some light to consumers by saying that, instead of anticipating an increase in fuel duty, he will announce a decrease in fuel duty.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Good Friday Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  As the Secretary of State talks up the Belfast agreement, he of course ignores the fact that its primary pledge of no constitutional change without consent has been trashed by the Windsor framework, in that article six of our Acts of Union, no less, has been suspended, and in 300 areas Northern Ireland is subject to foreign jurisdiction. That is constitutional change without consent. More than that, the guarantee of cross-community support was removed to force through the four-year extension to the protocol. Surely the Secretary of State should realise that the Belfast agreement has been hollowed out to promote the nationalist agenda that he seems so ready to embrace.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  As politicians, we all profess to be interested in protecting the vulnerable. If we are, surely one of the most vulnerable in our society are those going through adolescence. If anyone needs protecting, it is the adolescents. Feelings and behaviours fluctuate during adolescence. I am sure that is the experience of all of us who are parents. More often than not, gender dysphoria resolves naturally during puberty. That is the reality. Yet for too long in our society, we have had this laissez-faire attitude to puberty blockers. Until 2024, there was no restraint whatsoever. What damage was done to those children who were given puberty blockers before the pause was imposed? Does no one care about the damage that was done to those children? Whether one likes the word or not, it is experimentation on children, and without a due process of consent. The trial is incapable of having a due process of consent. When we endorse puberty blockers, we are turning a blind eye to the fact that they might have medical consequences on children’s bone density and on the development of their brains. Do we not care about that? If we care about that we need to cancel, not just pause, the programme.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Name them.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On the review of the Bill, can the Government give an absolute guarantee that all its parts will apply to the whole United Kingdom, and particularly Northern Ireland? We are still, alas, subject to the EU’s tobacco directive, which many believe conflicts with a key part of the Bill. If that aspect of the Bill is overturned in Northern Ireland, will the Government commit to legislating to ensure that it does apply across the whole UK?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 17 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I wholly appreciate that none of this is of our making or choice, but when the Foreign Secretary says that Iran’s action in the strait of Hormuz is an attempt to hijack the world economy, does that not put a direct focus on what is in the United Kingdom’s interest? If we take no action, we assist Iran’s attempt to hijack the global economy, but if we take action, are we not inescapably in this war?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, Flora Page KC resigned as a board member of the Legal Services Board. In her letter to the Lord Chancellor, she said that she could not stand idly by while he halved the number of jury trials and ripped the heart out of our constitution. She also rebutted the suggestion that backlogs are because of jury trials, saying that was being used as a “cover”. Faced with such a devastating critique, is it not time that the Department thought again?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Heating Oil Support · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, an oil refill that was costing less than £500 costs well over £1,000 today, so I am rather underwhelmed by a package that offers a household £35 pro rata. How does the £53 million for the whole package compare with the increased VAT tax take from the rise in the price of heating oil? I suspect that it does not compare favourably. Would not the fairer—

• 16 Mar 2026 · Heating Oil Support · Hansard source

  More

  Would the fairer approach not have been to suspend the 5% VAT on home heating oil? Would that not have been fairer to everyone?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Strait of Hormuz · Hansard source

  More

  Listening to some hon. Members this afternoon, one is left wondering whether President Trump or Iran is the enemy. The truth is that our bases have been attacked. Are we not, therefore, inevitably already involved in this conflict? The Government seem not to want to face up to that reality. When it comes to the strait of Hormuz, does it therefore follow that we are simply going to rely on the USA to open it? Have we any plan?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion · Hansard source

  More

  These papers show that, on 11 December 2024, just nine days before the Prime Minister confirmed Mandelson as the new ambassador, he was specifically advised of the J.P. Morgan report from 2009, which expressly said that Mandelson maintained a “particularly close relationship” with Epstein after Epstein’s conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. Yet the Prime Minister, a former chief prosecutor, chose in those circumstances, with that information, to believe the lies of Mandelson. How could that be? And given that it is, what does it say about the judgment of our Prime Minister?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to amendments 112 to 139, which stand in my name and those of other hon. Members. When the Chancellor introduced the Budget, she described it as a Budget for growth and a Budget to encourage business. The natural assumption was that we would have growth across the whole United Kingdom, that there would be no discrimination against any part of this United Kingdom, and that what was available to encourage growth in one part of the UK would be available in the others. That would be a natural expectation, given that we are a United Kingdom. Sadly, this Bill does not live up to that expectation, because clauses 13 to 15 introduce scandalous discrimination against businesses in Northern Ireland. Clauses 13 to 15 are about updating the assistance to businesses in England, Scotland and Wales, but not to those in Northern Ireland. These are the very levers that enable businesses to grow. Clause 13 is about enterprise management incentives, which were introduced in 2000. Since then, thousands of companies have used them as a tool to attract, retain and reward their employees through options, enabling employees to acquire shares in a company without liability for income tax or national insurance contributions. Instead, any gain is usually subject to lower rates of tax under capital gains tax. Under the enterprise management incentive, there have been caps on what is available. Under clause 13, the EMI limit on company options will be increased to £6 million for Scotland, England and Wales, but it will stay at £3 million for Northern Ireland. The EMI limit on gross assets will be increased to £120 million in England, Scotland and Wales, but limited to just £30 million in Northern Ireland. In England, Scotland and Wales, the number of employees a company can have will be lifted to 500, but Northern Ireland will retain the figure of 250. On that measure—one of a trio of measures capable of encouraging businesses to grow—we see an uplift for Great Britain, but a stagnation in the assistance for Northern Ireland. We see the same in clause 14 on the enterprise investment scheme. That scheme, along with the venture capital trusts covered in clause 15, has been a very useful tool for companies attracting investment so that they can grow. It has been described by the British Business Bank as “a government-driven initiative designed to stimulate investment in early-stage businesses through venture capital. It serves as a significant source of capital for these companies while also providing attractive tax reliefs to the investors who support them.” What is happening to the enterprise investment scheme across this one United Kingdom? In England, Scotland and Wales, the gross asset requirement will be raised to £30 million, but in Northern Ireland it will stay at £15 million. There is an uplift for both standard companies and new growth companies in GB, but none in Northern Ireland. A knowledge-intensive company’s lifetime investment limit in Scotland, England and Wales will be raised to £40 million, but in Northern Ireland it is capped at £20 million. It is the same in clause 15 on venture capital trusts. Again, Northern Ireland is trapped at the level set in 2012, whereas the rest of the country is allowed to move into 2026. When this Government talk about growth and pretend that it is growth for the whole United Kingdom, the fundamental question I have to ask is this: why does this Budget, in clauses 13 to 15, inhibit growth in my part of the United Kingdom while not giving a level playing field, not allowing equality across the United Kingdom and denying parity to Northern Ireland in this way? This amounts to systemic discrimination against business in my constituency. One is tempted to ask: are the Government trying to incentivise companies to locate in GB? Is that the motivation, because if someone about to set up a company realises that their venture capital thresholds and the incentives they could be given are higher in GB, why would they go to Northern Ireland? That is the disparity this Government are creating, and it is certainly not because the private sector is doing too well in Northern Ireland. Alas, Northern Ireland still has 27% of its workforce in the public sector in comparison with the UK average of 18%. The answer, sadly, lies in the fact that this Government and this Parliament embrace that discrimination against Northern Ireland because they are wholly beholden to the European Union. Northern Ireland, under the iniquitous Windsor framework, has been left under the EU state aid rules. That is the effect of article 10 of the Windsor framework. It leaves us subject to the state aid rules of foreign institutions, not the state aid rules of this United Kingdom. That has caused the Government, in their beholden attitude to the EU when it comes to enterprise schemes, venture capital and all the things in clauses 13 to 15, to simply retain Northern Ireland at the levels of support that were permitted pre-Brexit. Why? Because they are not prepared to face down the EU on the imposition of their foreign laws on my part of the United Kingdom in respect of support for industry.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is a very insightful question, but the answer is even more insightful. The growth we have had in Northern Ireland is in the services sector—lo and behold, the sector that is outside the Windsor framework. The manufacturing sector, which is clobbered by the Windsor framework, has not grown. The growth we have had—and thank goodness for it—is in the services sector. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman’s mantra of believing that all things EU are precious and beneficial, that is an illustration and an indication that our liberation from the EU in terms of services has served us well, but our entrapment in the EU in respect of manufacturing has served us very ill. The Bill underwrites that disadvantage to Northern Ireland. I say to the Minister: tell my constituents and my businesses why they are treated differently, why they are less deserving of the same capacity to be supported, why they cannot draw in the same level of venture capital or investment schemes, and why they are the second-class citizens of this United Kingdom. The answer, as I have said, is because this Government are wholly beholden to the EU. This is a Government with a reset policy. If they follow the trends of Northern Ireland, then very shortly under their reset policy, they are going to enslave themselves again to EU state aid rules; they are going to end up in the same predicament, where they will not be allowed to increase their state aid, such as they are doing here. There is one final point that the House needs to understand. If there is a dispute over whether there has been state aid that might breach the rules of our foreign masters, it is not the courts of this land that would decide on such a matter, but the European Court of Justice. It is so obnoxious, so wrong and so offensive that, though I sit as a Member for a United Kingdom constituency and come to this Parliament of the United Kingdom, this Parliament cannot make laws governing these issues in Northern Ireland because of the surrender of sovereignty to the EU. If this Government had any backbone and cared about parity in the United Kingdom and about the businesses in my constituency, they would be setting about giving us an equal playing field and facing down those who insist that it is their laws, not ours, that must apply.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Is the Minister saying to the House that the criterion here is to look at each region and see who is near the thresholds, and then to magically increase those that are? Surely the truth is that the Minister is not increasing the threshold because he has handed the power to do so to a foreign jurisdiction.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There is absolutely no doubt about that, and the Government are putting it up in lights. They are saying to new businesses coming into the United Kingdom or starting in the United Kingdom, “If you place yourself in GB, you will have an uplift available to you in terms of the aid we can give and the venture capital you can draw in, but if you stay in Northern Ireland then you will be at the bottom of the pile, treated unequally.”

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard some powerful speeches today, none more so than that from the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), and we heard something very striking from the Justice Secretary: he told us that juries are the “cornerstone” of our criminal justice system. What is a cornerstone? A cornerstone is the most important part of something, on which everything else depends. What is the cornerstone of democracy? It is voting. We would not think of getting rid of voting, but we are invited in this House to get rid of the cornerstone of jury trials in a huge spectrum of cases.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Judges, no matter how intellectual, erudite or experienced they might be, do not have the life experiences of 12 jurors. I spent my professional life as a junior and senior counsel in the criminal courts of Northern Ireland, and therefore I have substantial experience of appearing in not just jury trials but judge-alone trials, because for decades we had Diplock courts. I can tell the hon. Lady from my experience that if I was charged with an offence, without doubt I would choose the jury rather than the judge alone, because whether we like it or not, the most experienced judge becomes case-hardened. You will get far more empathy, either as a victim of crime or as a person accused of crime, from a jury. Why? Because they have the lived experience and so are likely to show an affinity with you, be you the victim or the accused. It is an immeasurable advantage in our justice system to have those deciding the facts of a case be those who have the feel for what it is to live in that community and know what it is to have empathy with either the person accused or the victim. They are in a far superior position to some case-hardened judge who has heard it all before and, frankly, cannot deliver the quality of dependable justice. I know from my experience that even many people who were convicted would have said, “Well, at least it was my peers who convicted me. I have more confidence in what they did than what a single judge would do.” What is a jury? When we abolish juries, we are abolishing not just an established right going back 800 years. We are abolishing a protection against arbitrary power. We are abolishing the honest broker. Who brings a case against an accused? The state. Who is the honest broker in that? The jury. The jury, who have that affinity and that lived experience, are in a far better position to reach a sustainable and credible verdict. In the end, it is about public confidence in our criminal justice system, which matters hugely. Far more public confidence is generated in our criminal justice system through jury trials than through judge-alone trials. The point was made earlier that around 41% of all summary trials that go to appeal are overturned. What does that tell us? It tells us of how case-hardened some of those who are hearing them are, it tells us of the summary nature and the speed with which some of the cases are heard, and it tells us that an injustice was done in 41% of those cases. Are we in the business of accentuating injustice? Surely not. Surely we are in the business of extracting injustice from our system, and we will do that far stronger and far better through maintaining, not diminishing, jury trials. As the Justice Secretary said, jury trials are indeed the cornerstone. Take away the cornerstone and you have begun to demolish the edifice in which we all have so much pride: our criminal justice system.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We are getting rid of them in thousands of cases, which will deny to those who are accused in those cases the right that each one of us would claim for ourselves: to be judged by our peers. We are doing it in cases that involve a large sentence. Three years is no trifling sentence—it is a substantial sentence that is life-changing, and yet we are suggesting that we should move away from that cornerstone of justice in all those cases.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Digital ID: Public Consultation · Hansard source

  More

  I suspect that my constituents will have at least these three concerns: that the digital ID scheme will become mandatory by stealth; that it will be vulnerable to IT failures; and that it will be in danger of malevolent hacking. Are those not real concerns? How will they be addressed? Will this proposal be China-proofed?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Defence · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the end of the first statement, it was indicated from the Chair that those who were not called on that statement would be prioritised in respect of this second statement. Did that happen? If not, why not?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  The Government want growth—we all want growth—but surely the Chancellor can see that the carbon tax that will result from extending the marine greenhouse gas emission regulations to the ferries, which are the economic lifeline to Northern Ireland, in circumstances in which there are no zero-emission alternatives, will add hugely to the consumer costs of my constituents and will disincentivise growth. Will she look again at that imposition, especially in view of the fact that the Scottish islands, which depend equally on the ferries, have been given an exemption?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I do not underestimate for a moment the gravity of any Government deciding to place their brave servicemen and women in harm’s way, but in circumstances in which our bases and citizens are being targeted by the terror machine that is Iran, why are the UK Government still equivocating over whether we are actively on the side of those who are determined to liquidate the threat? Why the equivocation?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The central point of the Bill is, of course, the franchising of 16 and 17-year-olds. I will not deal with that issue extensively, although I must say that I thought the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) essentially demolished the argument for votes for children. However, I want to look at it in a slightly different context. Whether someone is 16 or 86, the whole idea of universal suffrage is that people have the opportunity, as equals, to elect those who make their laws, whether in a council, in this Parliament, or in some other institution. That is the fundamental point. Indeed, the secret is in the title: Representation of the People—representation in the election of those who then make our laws. But here is the problem. If the Bill is passed and you are a 16-year-old in my constituency, you will not be electing those who make all your laws. If you are an 86-year-old in my constituency, you will not be electing those who make all your laws. That is because we are in the absurd position that in part of this United Kingdom—which boasts of universal suffrage, which boasts of equal rights across this United Kingdom—in not one area but in more than 300 areas of law, the laws are not made by those whom we elect; they are made by those in a foreign Parliament, the European Parliament, elected by the electorates of 27 other countries.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, transparency in funding is important, and I will say something about that if I have time, but there is a more fundamental issue. Whatever their age, the hon. Member’s constituents, once they are given the vote, have a right to elect those who make their laws. My constituents and I do not have the right to elect those who make our laws in my part of the United Kingdom, and I challenge anyone in this House to tell me why it is either democratic or right that we should have universal suffrage on the basis of representation of the people, but that we should extract and remove from the people of Northern Ireland that fundamental right in 300 areas of law. That is perverse. It is wrong. The Secretary of State, in introducing this debate, said that this Government “will tackle foreign interference head-on”. Well, let them start by removing the foreign interference in making the laws in my part of the United Kingdom. That would be a very good starting point. Finally, I want to make a point about foreign donations. This House may know that in Northern Ireland we have a party by the name of Sinn Féin, which has run a coach and horses through every regulation that has ever been made about foreign donations. Because the party operates in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, it plays the rules of one against another. In a recent year it received £2 million from the United States, so what does it do? It filters the money through whichever country’s laws allow it to be most easily filtered, and then moves it north-south or south-north, as suits the party’s purposes. This Bill does not yet go far enough. I want to see it tighten those loopholes and make sure that travesty cannot continue.